[QUOTE=MrOJr;64402]But this assumes that the "source" is telling what happened! The mistake is in reading the material as the wrong kind of literature. A famous historical Jesus scholar has said "If we wanted journalism, that's OUR problem!" This wonderful literature is not historical, it is theological. Scholar Raymond E. Brown in his magisterial "The Birth of the Messiah" says that if you will bear with him (for some 600 pages) you will find that he cherishes these stories even more than someone who thinks they report what happened.[/QUOTE]

You assume that I assume. To be honest, i don't buy it as an account of what happened. I think the author was merely telling a story. I think Jesus is a mythological character. Some of the preacher type teachings from Q that are found in gMatthew and gLuke might point to a religious leader, but according to Mack, (Q, The Lost Gospel), these may be dated to the 70's or so.

[QUOTE=whatson2nd;64202]From our best source, Jesus was born beneath the star in the east that the magi recognized as a sign that announced the birth of a future king. This star led them to Bethlehem. That is where Jesus was born.[/QUOTE]

Yep, right out of the Hindu Vedas. Kristna was born to a virgin, and the three magi gave him gifts of gold, frankincenses, and myrrh (their standard gift), and he was pursued by a tyrant ruler when he was an infant. And that star in the East, didn't Kristna live in the East?

Antioch, one of the early centers of Christianity, was at the end of two major trade routes from India. Hummm?

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]Well, we don't know until we start reading and thinking. I mean, ultimately, no, [/QUOTE]

Yes, that is correct, we don't know what the origin was for these stories. When you think, you need to consider all the possible origins of the sources, not just look for items which support the one you want.

In your presentations, you have not given any other possible sources, nor does it appear you have even considered them. This needs to be done, and then all the evidence should be examined to see which one is more likely. You appear to be trying to take a scholarly approach to the NT, then do it. Consider all the possible sources, give all of the evidence, and consider how the evidence might support (or not support) each of these possibilities. If there is not enough evidence to determine which one is more likely, then just state that the source cannot be determined. As I've said many times, "Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I just don't know from the evidence."

The Gospel were written 40-70 years after the events took place, by unknown authors, who most likely lived outside the regions, and had little (or no) contact with the original followers of Jesus. The Gospels were written far enough removed from the events which might have taken place, that we cannot determine the original source of much of the content. The Gospels themselves, give some indication that the stories originated outside of the Jewish community in Palestine, and were influenced by the Greek and pagan concepts.

We know some of the information in Matthew & Luke came from the writing in Mark, but we don't know where the author of Mark got his information. Where the other authors got the rest of there information is also unknown. It appears they, or someone else, made up large portions of the Gospels The authors may have just made up almost all the rest themselves. They may have heard them from someone else, who may, or may not have made them up. Or some of the information in the stories may have originally came from his followers in Jerusalem. We just don't know where it came from.

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]The similarity helps you distinguish between the factual and the embellished.[/QUOTE]

You are putting too much emphasis on the similarities, and I feel this is a major error. All the similarities show is that they are likely to have come from the same source. It tells you noting about the source, or if there was anything contained in it was factual true. The source may have been a story completely made up by someone else, who didn't know anything about what actually took place.

We also have mythology springing up about the deity Mithra around the same time. Should we look at the common elements in these myths, to determine what was actually true about Mithra? It became a more popular religion than Christianity for some period of time.

Whether any of the similarities in the stories of the Gospels are factual, is an entirely different question. If you are going to show that any are, you need to provide evidence to support this. So far, you haven't provided any.

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]So we follow the rules of independent sources, earlier is better, form criticism, etc.[/QUOTE]

Correct. And was the original story about Bigfoot factually true??

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]What would you expect to find? To be clear, what I said I would expect to find is contradictions between different accounts and inaccuracies within accounts. In what sense is that not what you would expect to find in ancient writings?[/QUOTE]

I would expect these to be in mythological stories no matter whether they were based on a few events which actually took place, or ones which were entirely fictional. If I would expect to see it in one, I would expect to see it in the other. Actually, I find fewer of these problems in the The Idiocy and The Oddity, and a number of other ancient writings.

If the stories were based on some information which was factually true, I would not expect as many parts to parallel stories in the OT, or from other religion. I would expect the stories to be more unique in nature. Parallel stories for almost every part of the NT can be found in other writings which existed at the time, and most would have been known by those in the oldboys religious network of story tellers.

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]And you still seem to not have understood the position I've held all along.[/QUOTE]

That could be because you have not stated it clearly, and haven't indicated what position you held on different parts of the Gospels when you make reference to them. When you use part of the NT as evidence to support your argument, I have assumed you considering these parts to be true. If you are not, and you are considering them to represent something else, you should point this out. So far, you haven't.

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]You're still using an either/or paradigm! You speak as though EITHER a portion of the story is there as theology OR it's there as a fact. [/QUOTE]

You apparent haven't read what I have written at least a dozen times. I have repeatedly said these parts, or any fictional story, might contain element which are factually true. Almost ever book of fiction does, as you have pointed out. I have never expressed it was an either/or situation, and repeatedly stated otherwise.

The problem, when it is fictional story or mythological story (both not factually all true), is determining what might be factually true, if anything. This needs to be determined by the use of external evidence. So far, you haven't given any.

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]What I'm saying is that the historical life of Jesus is the skeleton of the gospels,[/QUOTE]

So far, you haven't even provided the evidence to show that there was a historical Jesus. Are you making this assumption without evidence to support it. I might agree with you (I do), but you haven't provided the evidence to support this. A large part of your argument is based on this. Where is your evidence?

[QUOTE=Melancthon;63444]When I see specific Old Testament parallels, I assume that the stories was intentionally shaped at that point to highlight the parallel.[/QUOTE]

I do to, but then, how do we determine which parts might be factually true (if any). It makes it much more questionable whether any part might be true. It is more likely to be just a story written to express theology, with no concern about whether any part of it is factually true.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov

I'm inclined to believe that Jesus was born in a shack in Bethlehem, but not for any divine reason. I believe that the young couple were traveling in Mary's pregnancy, and she went into labor before their journey to wherever they were going was completed.
I also, in accordence with the bible, believe that three wise men/magi followed a star or planet (possibly Venus) to the town. Those three were actually Jain monks, but that's another story intirely.

The Wise Men were not Astrologers, They were Bible students. They knew the prophecy that pointed to the Birth of the Christ. And they knew it spoke of them.

They knew the Promise to David. That God said He would raise up David’’s son. After David was dead would this happen.

(2SAMUEL 7:11) And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. (KJV)

(2SAMUEL 7:12) And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (KJV)

(2SAMUEL 7:13) He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (KJV)

(2SAMUEL 7:14) I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: (KJV)

The day of the Cross is a day taken out of time, a day named "For ever." That is when the Throne of Christ is established, and that is when the House is built, What Jesus went forth to prepare for us. A House for us With God.

David already had Children, "Shall proceed" means they are not going to be used, But one later. Solomon became King while David was still alive, So Solomon can not fulfill the Promise.

David had a Son just after the Promise. And like the Stone which the Builders rejected, Most would not consider God would use that son at all.

(1CORINTHIANS 1:28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (KJV)

The Child was conceived outside wedlock to Bathsheba while she was still the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David had Uriah killed in Battle and He took Bathsheba to be his wife.

The Child was born about 1004 B.C. God struck the Child with Sickness and He died 7 days after Birth.

God’’s law in Deuteronomy 24:16 forbid a child to be put to death for the sins of a Parent, So that is not why the Child died. Jesus is also the "First begotten of the Dead." and you have to die to be REBORN physically.

The Wise men knew the Promise, they knew of the Child born after the promise. They knew the Parable God sent to David, and that the Parable showed that CHILD was to be the Christ, Reborn 1,000 years later to fulfill God’’s law in Deuteronomy 23:2 concerning Children born outside wedlock.

(2SAMUEL 12:4) And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. (KJV)

(JEREMIAH 14:8) O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? (KJV)
David did not take one of his wives to prepare for the Promise of the Messiah, He took Bathsheba. The poor man’’s lamb.

The law in Deuteronomy 23:2 says a "Child born outside wedlock" (The Word used in the King James is not allowed on this web site.) Shall not enter the Congregation, Not until the Tenth Generation.

God used a 100 year generation when speaking of the Children of Israel being in Egypt, 1004 B.C. To 4 B.C. When a Child is laid in a manger in Bethlehem is 10 100-year generations, Our Calendar is 4 years off.

The wise men knew of the Birth (Rebirth) from reading Isaiah Chapter 60:

(ISAIAH 60:22) A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time. (KJV)

(ISAIAH 60:1) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. (KJV)

ARISE, From the Dead, if this first word was not there, the Churches would use this as a Prophecy for Bethlehem, But how do you say God came down, and start with the Word ARISE?

(ISAIAH 60:2) For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. (KJV)

(ISAIAH 60:3) And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. (KJV)

There were other Babies at the Stable, that is why the Shepherds were told "You will find Him lying in a Manger."

(ISAIAH 60:5) Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. (KJV)

(ISAIAH 60:6) The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord. (KJV)

Incense, Like Frankincense and Myrrh.

Stars are for Signs, and the sign they needed is seen in verse 19:

(ISAIAH 60:19) The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. (KJV)

It was the Brightness of the Moon. And if you are going UPHILL, and the road is angled correctly. It would look as if the Moon stood still over a House. A Very Bright Moon.
So with what the Bible students knew, they knew the Sign, they knew who should come, On camels, and bringing Gold and Incense. And Come they did.

But they also knew where the Child was Born, or where God recorded His Birth. But God hid the Moon from them, So they went to where they thought they were headed all the time, To Jerusalem, the City of David where the Castle of Zion had been.

(PSALMS 87:4) I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. (KJV)

(PSALMS 87:5) And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. (KJV)

(PSALMS 87:6) The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah. (KJV)

This is a Similitude, as all prophecies are fulfilled the day of the Cross, The Body of Christ is born the day of the Cross at Zion or Jerusalem (Psalms 2:6/7) and the Child born outside wedlock was Born there also.

So the Wise Men come to Jerusalem asking "Where is He who is Born, King of the Jews?"

God reveals the Moon and off they go to Bethlehem.

They have to go Southwest from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, So the Moon is ahead of them, and seen over the House, The Road curves, etc, cn make it look like it is standing over the House.